|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 22, 2010 12:51:38 GMT -6
"It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." -- William Jefferson Clinton
So, has our culture degenerated to the point that we define "truth" as what we believe at any given moment and/or what is within us (whatever the hell that means)?
Perhaps we should just kill ourselves and let the terrorists have this country. Their truth is as valid as ours. Beam me up, Scottie!
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 23, 2010 8:02:20 GMT -6
Truth should be absolute. A lie is an intentional non truth. What do we call a non truth without intent?
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Oct 23, 2010 12:10:57 GMT -6
"It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." -- William Jefferson Clinton So, has our culture degenerated to the point that we define "truth" as what we believe at any given moment and/or what is within us (whatever the hell that means)? Perhaps we should just kill ourselves and let the terrorists have this country. Their truth is as valid as ours. Beam me up, Scottie! Diane, to put it plainly: Truth, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what the individual believes "within." There are millions of Muslims who hate Christians because their "truth" demands it. There are millions of Jewish people who feel the same about Muslims because their " truth" calls for it as well. Then their are the "Christians" whose mistrust and rancor against all who are different speaks volumes. Some would disagree with your characterization of our culture's "degeneration" choosing, rather, to see this unsolvable confusion of truth as religious freedom. Who knows? I certainly don't. Pontius Pilate was bold enough to ask our Beloved Savior: "What is truth!" Apparently he did not know either.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 23, 2010 15:39:24 GMT -6
If lawyers were honest (we'll pause to let the general hilarity die down), they'd admit that the use and definition of the verb 'to be' is a major part of a litigator's life.
We run across it here. Benteen said he thought a certain way about Custer's fate at a certain time. He felt another way at another certain time. If you take the two quotes out of context, he could be made to look as if he was lying, which people still do. We've shown here how incorrect it is and continuing to claim it amounts to a fabrication.
Clinton, a lawyer, was deflecting this game under oath. It doesn't sound as bad in context, and similar exchanges under oath happen all the time and have back to Ug, Smug, and Tug of Ur, Litigators and Reed Boat Rides on the Euphrates.
Pilate required no courage to ask squat of the sad sack in front of him. He'd probably listened to a Messiah a week for some years by then. The land crawled with them. He obviously didn't fear the Nazarene. Why would he? Why would it be 'bold' of him? Obviously, you don't know the story.
It was part of Pilate's job to be an exhausted judge from listening to whining, half-educated religious thugs deform the gods' logic and his own personal time with self-serving idiocy. This Nazarene, in contrast and by any standard and in all versions, was different than others, which caught his attention and empathy.
When the defendant started going on about the Truth, Pilate relapsed to bureaucratic autopilot from listening to these endless Messiahs and probably said something like "Oh, for Jupiter's sake, what IS (using his hands for air quotes) 'the TRUTH' after all but what clowns like me say it is? Chill, guy." Then went out to calm the blood crazy crowd before the Nazarene could answer. That's a scenario that makes sense given Pilate was not on the fast track to Rome and probably not thrilled by his assignment and had no interest in killing people for the fun of it. Touched up in re-write for the sound byte.
No evidence, I wasn't there (neither was John or any of the Gospel authors) but it makes more sense than the endless dramatic emoted phrase bytes that permeate the Bible after, I'd bet, oral focus group testing.
There is nothing in any of the three religions that "demand" hatred of the others. But Satan offered an app for that - situational ethics based on political need - which each religion could purchase for their own particular OS and many did.
I'm an atheist. A religious 'truth' is notional and accepted on faith, generally because of the utter lack of evidence. But then, it's not really a truth, either. It's a belief, and - ahem - a functioning Glossary of Terminology, enforced, would greatly aid here. It's a misused word.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Oct 23, 2010 19:58:05 GMT -6
Your statement, "obviously you don't know the story" is unassailable for I do not know the story. Ironically your confident remarks regarding the lowly status of Christ Jesus's is undermined by the reality that neither do you, or anyone else for that matter.
In the eye of a self professed atheist the Lord Jesus was nothing more than an insignificant pheasant who did not understand nor adhere to his proposed lowly position on earth. however, in the eye of a believer he is the Son of God!
That friend is a truth that has stood for 2,000 years.
I do respect and understand your response although I certainly do not agree.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 24, 2010 11:15:44 GMT -6
Let's get off religion. I said nothing about it. You assumed I meant a specific religion when I used the term terrorists. Your prejudice, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 24, 2010 11:31:06 GMT -6
On the other board, Montrose has made what I think are assumptions without ballast; at least, there are easier interpretations.
"Remember how Custer treated Reno. After Reno's scout, he wrote a letter published nationally that directly attacked Reno. Imagine your boss going on CNN to tell the world how bad you are at your job. That's a motivational tool rarely taught, outside of the Hussar Academy." Actually, we aren't totally sure that this was written by Custer, although it seems so, is in character, and has the literary touches and self regard that are Custer's indicators.
"Back when Custer was on his 9 month vacation, Reno preferred charges against Weir. During a mandated training day, Weir insolently refused to attend. He watched the regiment training from a porch. Custer dismissed these charges. This is a clear indiactor of Custer's attitudes towards, Reno, training, and the state of readiness of the 7th at the start of this campaign."
Not necessarily. Custer may have fully approved of Reno's actions against Weir, but already confronted with a lack of officers for the jaunt, confided he had to bring him along, and Reno may have agreed. I have no clue, but I fear the insistence of characterizing people over one incident. An 'incident' isn't indicative of Custer's attitudes. But the chronic lack of training, illustrated by field results, is.
It is indicative, in aggregate with his behavior up to the battle (showboating, bad attitude) and during the battle (insubordination, pointless risk, collapse of bravado under pressure), that Custer was right in his puzzlement about his wife's attractions to the man.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Oct 24, 2010 12:45:55 GMT -6
Apparently Weir's attractiveness to the ladies had to do with the fact that he was the only officer in the bunch who could discuss anything but shootin', fightin' and horses. They were all bored out of their skulls.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Oct 24, 2010 14:14:55 GMT -6
DC,
I would not say bad assumptions, more weak logic. I used a single example to draw a sweeping conclusion. However, I believe the inferences are consistent with a pattern of behavior exhibited by the principals.
Custer and Reno had a complicated relationship. It is interesting to see how little time they had in the field together. You would assume the regimental commander would want his lone field grade officer with him on campaign. The tension between Custer and Reno, and the fractured personal relationships among the 7th Cav leaders, is well documented elsewhere; to include this forum.
Custer using the media, books, and letters to reflect poor opinions toward superiors, peers and subordinates is also a very lengthy pattern of behavior. His fight with Hazen over the 1867/68 campaign is typical. Reading both accounts, one of them is making serious misstatements of fact. I think Hazen did an excellent job collecting supporting statements and facts supporting his view. Custer relied more on rhetoric, like a modern day TV anchor outshouting their opponents.
You are correct in stating that a single example is not compelling evidence. But I believe it is consistent with behavior already exhibited. It is just my opinion.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 25, 2010 9:01:23 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to think there was anything other than a platonic relationship between Libbie and Weir. Where's the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 25, 2010 9:09:06 GMT -6
You've got to be kidding, right?
If I believe within the very essence of my being -- within my heart and soul -- that your brain is made of mush, that is the truth, correct?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 25, 2010 12:19:59 GMT -6
Hey. That's MY job. You're the moderator, but you can't have all the fun. Don't take away my prerogative to drop kick Wiggs first. And especially, don't do it better than I have like you have here. I have my vanities you know.
There may not have been anything between Weir and La Custer, but Custer did remark upon his wife's opinion of Weir in a letter and it can be argued that his sudden need for being in her presence was at least partially inspired by the rumor of Weir's attentions to her, leading to his court martial. Utley's book mentions it.
Montrose,
I guess my irritation with single incident evaluations arose from the chronic damnations of Reno and Benteen, which I found both silly in substance and inaccurate. I've insisted that the three top officers be evaluated the same way, and so I defend Custer as possibly having a more Big Picture attitude than may be deserved or true because I think he doesn't seem to have had personal vendettas as a major part of his character. Rather, he tries to win people over.
Also, I don't see how he could have dumped Weir at that point given the bare boned officer corps of the 7th. I suspect Reno would appreciate that point as Custer would appreciate the fact Weir had to have been punished. No proof, but they lived in a real world.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 26, 2010 6:02:24 GMT -6
In the eye of a self professed atheist the Lord Jesus was nothing more than an insignificant pheasant Some people certainly thought he was a strange bird! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 26, 2010 10:45:43 GMT -6
See what you've done, Merkel? Now everyone is teeing off on Wiggs. We had a contract.........
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Oct 26, 2010 14:46:53 GMT -6
I will never understand why people want to think there was anything other than a platonic relationship between Libbie and Weir. Where's the evidence? I don't think anyone is making the assumption of anything more than a platonic relationship. But she certainly flirted with both Weir and Keogh. Weir also spent a fair amount of time courting Annie Roberts.
|
|